Started By
Message

re: Should I change my Roth IRA fund?

Posted on 7/19/18 at 12:26 pm to
Posted by tigerfan337
Member since Jun 2012
134 posts
Posted on 7/19/18 at 12:26 pm to
quote:

You've yet to answer why 2045 and 2065 shouldn't both be 90/10 right now. Unless you and I just have a completely different opinion on what asset allocation means.


My fault, I should have clarified that. The 90/10 allocation is fine. It’s the fact that the holdings are almost identical to one another.

If you recall, a poster on here stated that “the tgt date funds are fine and unless you’re going to start paying attention to daily domestic and intl. market fluctuations then you’re better off keeping your money in a tgt retirement fund.” That’s simply just not true.
You do not have to become a CFA to know how aggressive/conservative and pick appropriate investments OR pick up the phone and call the company where your investments are and ask what their recommendation is based on your preferences. It just takes a little time and effort. Which isn’t asking much considering this is your retirement money. But if you don’t want to do that, then the easy way (lazy way imo) is to just stick with the tgt retirement fund.

But I think what my main problem with the tgt retirement funds is that the name is misleading. People get into these funds because they’re able to assimilate to the name “Target Retirement Fund 20XX”
They know how old they want to be when they retire and then they pick that fund, and that’s the extent of their retirement planning.
-They know nothing else about the fund.
-They don’t know what it’s invested in, they don’t even know if it’s invested in the stock market or what mutual funds are in the fund
-They don’t know if it’s as aggressive/conservative as they are

People just pick the fund because of the name and that’s it. They’re done. No more need to worry about retirement. They can now sweep it under the rug and not think about it for a long time.
The name of the funds were named what they are to get people to invest in the funds. More money in the funds = more money for the fund company.
“Target Retirement Fund 20XX ” sounds a lot more appealing to potential investors than “Basic Investing Retirement Fund 20XX” even though Basic Investing is a more appropriate name, because that’s what it is - basic (cookie cutter imo).
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
34978 posts
Posted on 7/19/18 at 12:38 pm to
quote:

My fault, I should have clarified that. The 90/10 allocation is fine. It’s the fact that the holdings are almost identical to one another.


Okay. What holdings should be different between them? I mean, they are identical for a reason. Why would the 2045 fund need to be in a different index fund than the 2065 one? I'm not understanding your argument here.

quote:

But I think what my main problem with the tgt retirement funds is that the name is misleading. People get into these funds because they’re able to assimilate to the name “Target Retirement Fund 20XX”
They know how old they want to be when they retire and then they pick that fund, and that’s the extent of their retirement planning.
-They know nothing else about the fund.
-They don’t know what it’s invested in, they don’t even know if it’s invested in the stock market or what mutual funds are in the fund
-They don’t know if it’s as aggressive/conservative as they are

People just pick the fund because of the name and that’s it. They’re done. No more need to worry about retirement. They can now sweep it under the rug and not think about it for a long time.
The name of the funds were named what they are to get people to invest in the funds. More money in the funds = more money for the fund company.
“Target Retirement Fund 20XX ” sounds a lot more appealing to potential investors than “Basic Investing Retirement Fund 20XX” even though Basic Investing is a more appropriate name, because that’s what it is - basic (cookie cutter imo).


I get what you're saying, but you are basically arguing that the problem you have with the funds is that they help solve a problem that they are designed to help solve.

You can't criticize a vehicle that helps the very people that you say are too lazy are don't know much about investing, because it helps make investing easier for them. Are they perfect? Absolutely not, no investment vehicle is. You're argument is basically just criticizing it because it solves a problem for people, that you say they should solve on their own.

You keep calling it lazy. That just isn't fair to people. Not everyone is passionate about investing. I don't mean this as any slight, but I would be shocked if you've ever met with anyone about managing their money. There are just people out there that don't enjoy this stuff and know they aren't good at it. Using a tool that can help mitigate their weaknesses is not lazy.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram